Re: [dp-tf] Quadlogy of person proposals

[Denis Walker <]

Leo Vegoda wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2007, at 14:04, Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> I doubt person objects would be, either. That's what organisation
>>> objects, do.
>>
>> Maybe, but in many cases it would simply shift the problem from the left
>> hand to the right hand. Take my case at home:
>>
>> I have been assigned 8 addresses for my ADSL connection by my Telekom
>> Op.
>>
>> With your approach I could easily hide my personal contact information
>> because that can/has to go into "my" organisation: object. In the end it
>> is the same set of (personal) information under a different heading.
>
> There is an inevitable tension between the needs of LEAs and the rules
> set down in data protection legislation. Unless there is a law
> requiring contact information for consumer customers to be entered
> into the RIPE database I would encourage us to set policies that
> comply with data protection laws.
>
> I think that in the vast majority of cases there is no need to list a
> contact from the customer end of a DSL or other consumer service.
> Noting that the assignment has been made is important but identifying
> the contact information is unlikely to be helpful in most situations.
> Listing the ISP's contact information is the right approach in the
> majority of cases, I think. The ISP obviously knows the end user's
> contact information and can supply it when appropriate.

I see some conflict here between your right not to be identified and my
right to know who is spamming me. Maybe I want to complain directly to
the spammer. But if I have to go to the ISP and ask them to identify the
end user they may just say "sorry we can't give out confidential
customer information". Then I have to go to court of the police to even
write a letter of complaint to the spammer.

The RIPE DB is a registry of IP Address information. If we hide the
bottom layer we change the whole concept.

cheers
denis
>
> Regards,
>
> Leo